Invercargill HRC 16 October 2025 – R2 – Richard Austin

BACKGROUND

Mr Munro alleged that Graduation Driver Richard Austin (CALIFORNIA DREAMING) drove carelessly in Race 2 passing the 750 metre mark when contacting an inside runner (MAGIC SIGN).

Rule 869(3)(b) provides:

No driver in any race shall drive carelessly.

The Respondent acknowledged to the Adjudicative Committee that he was familiar with the Rule and the nature of the charge.

Mr Austin confirmed that he did not admit a breach of the Rule.

Stewards called one witness; Mr Douglas, the Driver of MAGIC SIGN.

EVIDENCE

Mr Munro, with the assistance of Ms Haley, used the available race videos to identify Mr Austin, driving CALIFORNIA DREAMING, parked in 2nd position as the field approached the 800 metre mark. Leading the race was MONTAGE (Kirk Larsen), which was trailed by MAGIC SIGN (Mr Douglas).

The primary race video showed Mr Douglas’ inside sulky wheel dislodging the third pylon after the 800 metre mark, which flew into the air. Several strides after this, MAGIC SIGN paced roughly and lost momentum, disrupting horses that were trailing behind him on the marker line.

Stewards alleged that Mr Austin had moved in on Mr Douglas, causing both the pylon to be struck and, several strides later, interference to MAGIC SIGN. Mr Douglas could be seen to suddenly take hold of his horse and lose ground, after which Mr Austin moved down to the marker line to trail the leader.

Witness Hayden Douglas

Stewards called Mr Douglas, the Driver of MAGIC SIGN, to give evidence. He confirmed his horse was running true in the trail when moving off the bend at the 800 metre mark.

Mr Douglas stated he experienced pressure from his outside which caused him to run out of room. This pressure was why he hit the pylon at about the 750 metre mark, he said. The sulky wheel immediately to the outside of MAGIC SIGN then hit the horse’s off-hind leg, Mr Douglas said. He added that he tried to yell out as the incident was unfolding.

Mr Douglas used the race footage to indicate the points at which the pylon was dislodged and the subsequent interference occurred.

Presenting the back straight head-on camera angle, Mr Munro asked the witness to identify the position of Mr Austin’s left (inside) sulky wheel in relation to the leader’s right (outside) sulky wheel just before the interference. Mr Douglas said the line of Mr Austin’s left wheel was inside the leader’s right wheel, which showed Mr Austin had “come narrow.”

Mr Austin asked Mr Douglas if MAGIC SIGN was hanging out. Mr Douglas replied that he was “running straight.”

In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Mr Douglas confirmed MAGIC SIGN was an experienced horse that had coped with the windy conditions on the day and had not undergone any gear changes for the race.

Respondent Richard Austin

Mr Austin did not accept he had caused interference to MAGIC SIGN.

“I don’t think my horse is putting any pressure on the inside horse at all,” he said. Mr Austin submitted he was “well away” from Mr Douglas when the pylon was dislodged and added, “I did not hear a horse hit my wheel.”

Mr Austin disputed the evidence that his left sulky wheel was inside the leader’s right sulky wheel. He did not agree with the Steward’s submission on this point, but struggled to counter this when attempting to analyse the race footage.

At the request of the Adjudicative Committee, the primary race video was replayed in slow motion and the zoom function was used to show MAGIC SIGN’s off-hind foot striking Mr Austin’s sulky wheel.

Asked if he accepted that MAGIC SIGN’s foot had knuckled in against his horse’s wheel, Mr Austin said, “it must have done, but I didn’t hear it.”

Mr Austin said MAGIC SIGN’s head was turned in before the interference, which to him suggested the horse was hanging out. It was his contention that this was the cause of the incident.

“He’s come out on me. I have not come in,” Mr Austin submitted.

Summing Up

Stewards maintained that the race videos, supported by the evidence from Mr Douglas, showed the Respondent had caused the tightening and subsequent interference.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Austin moved in and pressured MAGIC SIGN approaching the 750 metre mark, causing that horse to strike Mr Austin’s inside sulky wheel and pace roughly.

The race footage shows, to the satisfaction of the Adjudicative Committee, MAGIC SIGN’s off-hind foot striking Mr Austin’s left sulky wheel and, just prior to this interference, that same sulky wheel positioned inside the leader’s right sulky wheel. This suggests a significant degree of tightening occurred.

Mr Austin attributes the dislodging of the pylon and subsequent interference to MAGIC SIGN hanging out and making contact with the sulky wheel. He referenced MAGIC SIGN’s head being turned in just before the interference.

The Adjudicative Committee finds that, although MAGIC SIGN’s head does turn in, the horse maintains a true trailing position behind the leader before the incident. This is supported by the video evidence, which also shows Mr Douglas holding his hands on the reins evenly at the critical stage.

Mr Douglas gave clear and unambiguous evidence that the pressure that caused the incident came from Mr Austin. The Adjudicative Committee shares this view.

Given the factors described, the Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Austin has driven carelessly and breached the Rule.

DECISION

The charge is found to be proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Stewards produced the Respondent’s record, which showed that Mr Austin had just renewed his Licence as a Graduation Driver. This was his first day back driving after a period of inactivity.

Mr Austin had had 7 drives this season and 20 the last. His lifetime drives stood at 108.

He had a clear record under the Rule, Mr Munro said.

Stewards assessed this to be a mid-range Careless Driving breach, by the accepted definitions. Along with MAGIC SIGN, three other horses travelling on the marker line were disrupted by the interference. None of these horses had their chances extinguished.

In such circumstances, the starting point in the Racing Integrity Board’s Harness Racing Penalty Guide was a $500 fine or 2-day suspension. Mr Munro said Stewards believed the penalty should land on one of these two options, with no discount available due to the Respondent exercising his prerogative to defend the charge.

Mr Austin expressed his preference for a suspension over a fine. He did not seek a deferment of any suspension.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The Penalty Guide defines a mid-level breach of the Careless Driving Rule as one causing interference which impacts the chances of the Respondent’s own horse or another horse’s chances. In this case several horses are affected by the interference, but do not have their chances terminated.

Mr Austin allows his horse to move in approaching the 750 metre mark and tighten MAGIC SIGN, which paces roughly and prompts a disruptive chain reaction for the other horses on the marker line.

Under the definition above, and based on the consequences of the Respondent’s actions, the Adjudicative Committee finds this to be a mid-level breach.

The Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a $500 fine or 2-day suspension for a first Careless Driving breach within the reset period that is found to be mid-level.

There are no aggravating or mitigating factors that warrant a deviation from the starting point. Mr Austin has just resumed race driving after a hiatus, which offers context to his clear record under the Rule. He was entitled to defend the charge, and therefore cannot receive any credit he otherwise may have received had he admitted the breach.

CONCLUSION

Graduation Driver Richard Austin is suspended for 2 days, from the conclusion of racing on 16 October 2025 up to and including racing on 31 October 2025. The meetings affected by the period of suspension are: Tuapeka HRC (26 October) and Winton HRC (31 October).